#mediated communication

Based on your answers, you can see your result below

82%Problem Solver

Problem Solvers tend to want to discuss all the details of a problem and work through it together so that everyone gets what he or she wants and is happy in the end. Their strengths are that they tend to welcome differences, build high-levels of trust and mutual understanding in relationships. There is also the potential to learn from creative problem solving. Weaknesses: When time is a factor, it is difficult to spend the energy and time needed to process the way Problem Solvers tend do. There is also the potential for burnout from over-processing.

Interpreting your scores

Each conflict style presented here has been scored individually. The percentage identifies how often you selected the particular style when it was provided as an option in the assessment.

You may look at your scores and wonder how “right” they are. There are no right and wrong answers in this assessment, as it examines how you handle conflict situations which can vary greatly. Different contexts call for different approaches, and there is a time and a place to use each of the conflict styles. 

57%Accommodator

Accommodators have a harmonizing approach to conflict.  They often focus on supporting others in a conflict situation and are adept at placating people in uncomfortable situations. Accommodators often gain strong appreciation from others involved in a conflict.

Weaknesses: Accommodators may build up resentment from denying their own needs. It also may be difficult for those who want to get to the root of the problem to work with Accommodators who tend to focus on making others happy.

Interpreting your scores

Each conflict style presented here has been scored individually. The percentage identifies how often you selected the particular style when it was provided as an option in the assessment.

You may look at your scores and wonder how “right” they are. There are no right and wrong answers in this assessment, as it examines how you handle conflict situations which can vary greatly. Different contexts call for different approaches, and there is a time and a place to use each of the conflict styles. 

55%Compromiser

Compromisers approach conflict with the goal of compromise. They tend to think about what they are willing to give up and what they are willing to hold on to, and try to gear communication to focus on this give and take for all parties. It is a good way to promote cooperation. It can be done fairly quickly when both parties are engaged.

Interpreting your scores

Each conflict style presented here has been scored individually. The percentage identifies how often you selected the particular style when it was provided as an option in the assessment.

You may look at your scores and wonder how “right” they are. There are no right and wrong answers in this assessment, as it examines how you handle conflict situations which can vary greatly. Different contexts call for different approaches, and there is a time and a place to use each of the conflict styles. 

50%Avoider

Avoiders tend to step away from conflict. They often keep their opinions to themselves in conflict situations so as not to continue or escalate the conflict. They are often admired for having a calming, quiet presence in the face of crisis. Weaknesses: Avoiders sometimes keep their feelings bottled up and then aren’t able to meet their own needs. This can result in a frustrating buildup of emotions.

Interpreting your scores

Each conflict style presented here has been scored individually. The percentage identifies how often you selected the particular style when it was provided as an option in the assessment.

You may look at your scores and wonder how “right” they are. There are no right and wrong answers in this assessment, as it examines how you handle conflict situations which can vary greatly. Different contexts call for different approaches, and there is a time and a place to use each of the conflict styles. 

8%Competer

Competers are known for being persuasive and direct. They know the result they want in a conflict situation, and they go for it. Their strengths are that they are often passionate about their views and dedicated to pursuing their convictions. Competers are good at making quick decisions, and tend not to waste time, which is especially helpful in the time of crisis. Weaknesses: Sometimes Competers wind up with unequal relationships with others, and feelings of others can be hurt or overlooked with their decision-making style.

Interpreting your scores

Each conflict style presented here has been scored individually. The percentage identifies how often you selected the particular style when it was provided as an option in the assessment.

Highlights

Antiques Road Trip offers viewers not only a chance to see there are a number of different ways prices can be arrived at.

The performance imperatives of broadcast discourse emphasize the performances of flirtation and desire.

While these forms of performance are novel in their articulation with expertise, they are commonplace in media more broadly.

We find here that the expertise is geared towards popular expertise and the pleasures of interaction.

Abstract

New Post has been published on http://www.learn-digital-marketing.com/social-sharing-makes-events-seem-more-real-says-study/

Social Sharing Makes Events Seem More Real, Says Study

A new study published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior investigated the widespread practice of sharing personal news and events via social media and smartphones.

The study looked at which types of media and platforms people chose for sharing positive and negative personal information, and how they felt after sharing news in mediated environments.

Three-hundred undergraduate students at UW-Madison participated in the study, which was conducted by graduate students Mina Choi and Catalina Toma.

Participants kept a diary of how sharing information about a particular event affected their emotions and compared it to the feelings they experienced during the event itself. They tracked the kinds of messages and events they shared and how and where they chose to share each.

The results showed that 70 percent of social sharing took place through mediated communication such as texting, phone calls, Facebook or Twitter. Toma says people use phones, texting and social media to connect with others in substantial ways. “It’s almost like the event is not even real until you tell somebody,” she said.

Moreover, participants strategically chose media based on specific psychological needs and expectations. They chose texting and Twitter for sharing positive life events as they occurred in the real world. These channels were preferred for their easy accessibility and non-intrusiveness (receivers do not feel compelled to respond immediately).

When experiencing negative events, however, people justified interrupting others in more intrusive ways, particularly by telephone. “You often hear people say when the phone rings, it’s bad news,” Toma said. “Our data support that.”

Choi and Toma also found that sharing on social media enhanced an event’s emotional tone and impact — an effect known as capitalization. With regard to positive life events, “telling somebody makes you even happier,” said Toma.

Similarly, sharing negative news makes it “more real” and aggravates the negative emotions experienced during the actual event. Participants who shared negative news felt worse overall, and social media shares produced more negative effects than sharing via the telephone.

Judy Lewis | 13.04.14 

The topic for this week is one that I had never given much though to before. Never having experienced a time before mobile phones and home computers, the ability to interact with anyone I wanted at the touch of a button was of little awe to me as it was just always present.

 The process of ‘domestication’ is where a new device becomes a normal component of everyday living. (Baron, 2008, p. 3). An example provided by Naomi Baron that I found particularly interesting is the process of flying; when it was still a novelty people would dress well specifically for the occasion, whereas now dress codes range anywhere from trip to the grocery store to important business meeting.

 Reflecting on my own personal situation, it wasn’t so much that new media technological advances weren’t a big deal, its just that they always there. Myself and the many other first world children that I grew up with were growing at the same time that this technology was. Instant messaging and social media was the next step from emails and telephone calls, it was as natural as going from primary school to high school, no questions asked, this is how it’s supposed to happen.

 Now however, when I reflect on the number of younger children on Facebook, I feel as though they’ve skipped eight or ten steps: no first you have to get email, and then you have to get msn instant messenger, and then you get MySpace, and then maybe you can experiment with Bebo, and then and only then can you get a Facebook, it’s just the natural path of life. Of course what I’m feeling is nothing new to what has been felt before, first you have to handwrite your letters, then you can telephone on a landline, then and only then can you maybe buy a home computer or cellular phone.

 Another aspect that amused me was the concept that caller ID has become the new form of crossing a street to avoid an unwanted conversation. The image of an old family friend pop up on your phone screen is similar to the feeling of them begin to recognize you on the street, as the ringing continues it replaces the quickened pace as they begin to approach you, and as you select ignore and turn your phone over, the act replaces crossing the street. However unlike in real life, if the unwelcome party were to continue their pursue by crossing the road with you, if they were to continue ringing, a simple action of blocking the pursuer would be the equivalent of having the person disappear completely all together. Though many might be thankful for this ability, the act really brings up the concerning view of how far new media technologies allow us to completely shut people out of our lives.

  References:

With the popularity of modern technologies and it gradually integrated into people's daily lives, people's information dissemination and emotional exchange begins to be more and more dependent on the technologies, forming new mode of communication which is different from the traditional face to face interpersonal communication. This new mode of communication is known as Computer - Mediated Communication (referred to as CMC). It breaks the limitations of the traditional forms of communication, but it also brings impoverishment

  Face-to-face communication (FTF) as the representative of the traditional forms of communication, brings the interactive individuals to flock to a particular space, and thus the interaction must follow specific rules of time and space. Although after the emergence of landline telephone, to some extent it breaks the limitations of spatial distance, but has failed to go beyond the limitations of time. Connection and intimacy could be across time and space (Valentine 2006). When technology such as computers, and other Internet tools into people's daily life, the new way of communication CMC, makes the interaction and communication between individuals out of the restrictions of time and space. Moreover, with the development of mobile media and Internet technology, it liberates people from a fixed Internet location (desktop computer) to achieve the truly interacting anytime, anywhere. This breakthrough makes a qualitative change of the concept of space-time of interaction. Interaction of two or more parties is no longer limited to a specific time and place, but can send information to each other and get each other’s information in anytime and anywhere through the internet. To some extent, it achieved the freedom of space-time to interact

  Mediated communication lacks for reality of non-verbal social cues, that is can not be ignored. According to Baym (2010), “Mediated communication is seen as a diminished form of face to face conversation”.  In real life, interpersonal communication is face to face, but CMC eliminates many of the necessary elements of it, such as facial expressions, eye contact, body language, tone of voice, the two spacing, environmental effects, etc. “Computer-mediated interactants are unable to see, hear, and feel one another, they can't use the usual cues conveyed by appearance, nonverbal signals, and features of the physical context (Baym 2010)”. Mobile phone addiction is one of the most common problems of CMC. Nowadays, mobile phone has become an important social platform, you can see people head down staring at the phone everywhere or even when they are having social activities with other people in real life.

In this way, people will slowly out of his "reality”, and reduce "face to face" communication, living in a virtual world. Therefore, “Mediated communication may be better than face to face interaction for some tasks, but for those involving personal identities and feelings, mediation was depicted as inherently inferior (Baym 2010)”.

Please watch this YouTube video: Cell Phones Kill Your Happy

New media interaction is an efficient, convenient, low cost, and many other advantages, but the traditional forms of interaction still occupy an important position in social interaction. Whether it is a traditional interaction conducted in real space or mediated communication of new media in cyberspace, two different forms of interaction will interweave, coexist and complement each other.

            References

Baym, Nancy. 2010. “Ch 3: Communication in Digital Spaces.” In Personal Connections in the Digital Age, 50-70. Cambridge MA: Polity Press. 

Mediated communication- How is it changing our language and relationships?

Mediated communication is the form of communication using technologies to record information across time and space or in the context of new media, computer-mediated communication (CMC) is a major form of personal and business interaction in today’s world (Sauter, 2014). CMC has become so normal to us that our experience with these technologies have gradually altered behavioural and social norms (Baron 2008, 4). 

So how does mediated communication compare with face to face communication? Baym (2010, 52) talks about the ‘Social Presence Theory’ which is described by Thurlow, Lengal, and Tomic as the “level of interpersonal contact and feelings of intimacy experienced in communication.” Social presence regards how “interactants perceive one another, not a feature of a medium” (Baym 2010, 52). Non-verbal cues enabled or disabled by a medium are signs of the perception of social presence. Smiling, nodding, posture, facial expression and proximity are examples of non-verbal cues in face to face communication and are important to demonstrate attentiveness, understanding and emotional meaning of interactions. This questions if mediated communication can successfully serve social functions as you cannot read the non-verbal cues (Baym 2010, 53). As mediated communication has evolved through technology and through users, things have been created to help replace non-verbal cues like emoticons and some abbreviations. But is a smiling face, winky face or a ‘lol’ deep enough to communicate true emotion and meaning?

Also, how is all this writing that we now do in mediated communication changing our language? Baron suggests two fundamental changes mediated communication has had on our language and the way we use it:

1- The first is how communication technology gives us the ability to now control when we interact with whom. For example, before these technologies if someone called your phone only after you answered it would you find out who called. But now it’s so easy for us to ignore unwanted calls or messages, giving us the total control of these new tools for interpersonal ‘volume’ control (Baron 2008, 6).

2- The second change is the concern of what effect the quantity of our writing is having over the quality of it. The more we write online are we actually becoming worse writers (Baron 2008, 6)? As a result of this poor writing is it also now affecting the way we speak in face to face communication? It’s sad to admit that some of my friends and even I on occasion have said things like lol, probs or soz in face to face communication.

Technology and CMC is more important now than ever to relationship formation than it previously was (Gregoire, 2013). Researching statistics of couples that have met online was shocking as one third of recently married couples in the US met online (Magid, 2013). These days even if a couple doesn’t meet online a lot of the initial stages of relationship formation and things like organising dates are mostly done through texting or CMC. It would be interesting to continue to research how couples use mediated communication and the effect it has on the relationships. Also if the rate of couples meeting online continues to grow at the rate it has what will it be in 10 years time?

The YouTube video below is a really interesting insight into how emojis have changed mediated communication and how they are trying to fill that void in written language. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tWZ2JmFpx0

References: 

Baron, Naomi. 2008. “Ch 1: Email to Your Brain: Language in an Online and Mobile World.” In Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World, 3-10. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baym, Nancy. 2010. “Ch 3: Communication in Digital Spaces.” In Personal Connections in the Digital Age, 50-70. Cambridge MA: Polity Press.

Gregoire, Carolyn. 2013. “Too Much Texting Could Be Harming Your Relationship, Study Finds” Accessed April 10, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/too-much-texting-could-be_n_4192051.html

Magid, Larry. 2013. “A Third of Recently Married Couples Met Online and They're More Satisfied and Less Likely To Split-Up” Accessed April 10, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2013/06/03/a-third-of-recently-married-couples-met-online-and-theyre-more-satisfied-and-less-likely-to-split-up/

Does people are really isolated compared to the past? McPherson et al.(2006)  conducted empirical study that shows that Americans’ intimate relationship have weakened over 20 years.  Specifically, they pointed out the size and diversity of core networks were reduced compared to the past. Some scholars argue that people are isolated more and blame communication technology for affecting core networks negatively. For example, Turkle(2011) argued that the mediated communication via technology has replaced the face to face communication among intimate relationships, which destroyed our authenticity and humanity. I think that it is too risky to conclude that communication technology causes people to be isolated. It is true that communication technology affects the way of communicating with our family, kin and friends.  However, we need to consider other social contexts in which people use communication technology. The readings of this week suggest diverse social contexts where we use communication technology. 

First of all, communication technology affords us the chance to establish healthy relationships. People usually have a prejudice that online relationship is fake and improper. However, according to Toma et al. (2008), online self-presentation is quite accurate. Based on accurate information, it is highly likely to meet real friends, date-mates, spouses or partners. Cacioppo et al.(2013) also found out that one-third of marriage in America begin on-line. Moreover, they showed that marriages that begin online were less likely to be divorced and more likely to feel more satisfaction to their marriage. People exposure themselves in online community and explore others who are very similar to them. In other words, communication technology allows people to form a new intimate relationship selectively. Although selective choice make core networks smaller and less diverse, people feel more satisfaction and comfortably  in individual private life. But this does not refute fully the argument that communication technology create social trend toward smaller and less diverse core networks.  

Secondly, we need to consider the effects of communication technology in terms of maintaining intimate relationship. Many studies show that the effects of communication technology can be neutral or positive. For example, Haythornthwaite(2005) argue that we need to consider types of relationship in order to diagnose the effects of communication technology. Specifically, she claimed that “the number of media used differs by tie strength, what is communicate does not differ by medium but the type of ties (p,130).”  Thus, people use multiple media to maintain strong ties (intimate relationship).The overall quality of communication is not be changed that much over 20 years. Furthermore, the article from NPR implies the potential of mobile communication in intimate relationship. However, this argument also does not rebut the finding of McPherson et al.(2006).  According to Haythornthwaite(2005), the size and diversity of core networks should not be changed because communication technology have a strong effect on weak ties. But McPherson et al.(2006) directly showed change of strong ties.

Cultural shift can influence the change of core networks more than communication technology. For example, Hampton et al.(2011)  argued that cultural shifts change the meaning of core networks over 20 years. Specifically, McPherson et al.(2006) asked people “Whom do you discuss the important matters” in order to measure core networks. However, Hampton et al. (2011) saw that those whom people discuss important matters dos not mean significant person of their life. Communication technology actually increase pervasive awareness among intimate relationships, people discuss many trivial things with private relationships rather than discussing important matter. In fact, when we face some problem, the thing we do first is ‘Googling’ or asking online. Technology can contribute to cultural shifts but it does not mean technology itself change intimate relationship.

Lastly, we need to think societal environment where we live. People make not only private relationships but public relationships with our community, institutions or government. When public relationship provides enough resources to us, our private networks naturally can be smaller and less diverse. Hampton & Ling (2013) showed difference of core networks in three different societies. According to them, people were less likely to have bigger and diverse private networks in society which have abundant public resources. This finding implies that we do not have to be worried about the fact core networks are smaller and less diverse.